· Public charity
The Fairness Project
Promoting general social welfare of the community through the use of, and education around, ballot measures advancing economic and social equity.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2017–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- $10k–50k1 grant · $13k
- $50k–250k2 grants · $225k
- $250k+8 grants · $27M
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM INC | $16,400,000 |
| MISSOURIANS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM | $4,450,000 |
| NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM | $1,500,000 |
| BETTER JOBS FOR ALASKA INC | $1,430,000 |
| MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS | $1,250,000 |
| ARIZONA FOR ABORTION ACCESS | $935,000 |
| NORTH DAKOTA CITIZENS PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION | $456,452 |
| MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTHY FAMILIES & FAIR WAGES | $250,000 |
| NEBRASKANS FOR PAID SICK LEAVE | $125,000 |
| LINCOLN FOR FAIR HOUSING | $100,000 |
| PROTECT MAJORITY RULE | $12,886 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY17–17, $600k) land where the poverty rate runs at 14%, against an area that typically sits at 9%. 100% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +119% since the first grant, against 0% for the ones you funded once.
9 repeat relationships — 3 still active in FY2024, 6 since wound down; 8 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 5% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $26M went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- BPBLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION2× · 2018–2020 · $935k · revenue ×82
- MPMAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE2× · 2017–2022 · $241k · revenue +8%
- UHUTAH HEALTH POLICY PROJECT2× · 2017–2018 · $76k · revenue +119%
Funded once
- OUOhioans United for Reproductive Rightsone grant, 2023 · $2.8M
- ITINSURE THE GOOD LIFEone grant, 2018 · $1.1M
- MEMAINE EQUAL JUSTICE PROJECTone grant, 2017 · $621k · 33% of their budget
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
To oppose a colorado statewide ballot initiative to join the national popular vote compact
Support "yes" vote on referendum dealing with national popular vote
Supports Measure to Remove Lawmakers Power to Set Their Own Pay
Issue Committee to sponsor a ballet measure for cost transparency
To oppose a Michigan ballot measure
Support state ballot measure
Protect Women Ohio Action is a Section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization and registered ballot committee in the State of Ohio engaged in advocacy activities related to the "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and…
Support state initative petition
New Approach Montana is a registered Montana ballot question committee in support of two 2020 ballot initiatives for the legalization of marijuana for adults 21 and older.
Amends Constitution: Specifies that prohibited discrimination includes discrimination concerning gender identity/pregnancy, related health decisions, sexual orientation
Securing reforms to the electoral count act
Informed and educated the public and lawmakers about the benefits of including independent voters in Pennsylvania's primary elections.
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Floridians Protecting Freedom and the most unlike its peers is Raise the Wage Nebraska. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
35 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 35 of the 50 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds FLORIDIANS PROTECTING FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds Missourians for Constitutional Freedom ↗
- Who funds Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights ↗
- Who funds NEBRASKANS FOR REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM ↗
- Who funds BETTER JOBS FOR ALASKA INC ↗
- Who funds MONTANANS SECURING REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ↗
- Who funds SIXTEEN THIRTY FUND ↗
- Who funds BLACK PROGRESSIVE ACTION COALITION ↗
- Who funds MAINE EQUAL JUSTICE PROJECT ↗
- Who funds FAMILIES USA FOUNDATION INC ↗
- Who funds Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom PAC ↗
- Who funds NORTH DAKOTA CITIZENS PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION ↗
- Who funds Protect AR Constitution ↗
- Who funds One Person One Vote ↗
- Who funds FORWARD ACTION FUND ↗
- Who funds MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTHY FAMILIES AND FAI ↗
- Who funds MONTANA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION ↗
- Who funds MI TIME TO CARE ↗
- Who funds Raise the Wage Nebraska ↗
- Who funds WILL OF THE PEOPLE ARIZONA ↗
- Who funds SOUTH DAKOTANS FOR FAIR ELECTIONS ↗
- Who funds Nebraskans for Paid Sick Leave ↗
- Who funds MAINE PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE ↗
- Who funds DEMAND JUSTICE ↗
- Who funds COLORADO FAMILIES FIRST ↗
- Who funds MISSOURIANS FOR HEALTHCARE ↗
- Who funds SOUTH DAKOTANS DECIDE HEALTHCARE ↗
- Who funds Yes on Measure A for Sheriff Accountability Sponsored by Civil and ↗
- Who funds UTAH HEALTH POLICY PROJECT ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: Sixteen Thirty Fund · Open Society Action Fund Inc · American Civil Liberties Union Inc · Advocacy Action Fund Inc · Planned Parenthood Action Fund Inc · Hopewell Fund · Global Impact Social Welfare Fund · North Fund · Think Big America · Instructional Telecommunications Foundation Inc · Our American Future Action · Tides Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization The Fairness Project funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.